re: REPORT: Updated NASA Data NO Polar Ice Retreat

For my last post

4. Conclusions

[19] We demonstrated that the major part of the variance of the interannual SLA in the NA and NP is possibly associated with the interdecadal variations of sea level. We showed that in 1993–2003 the subpolar and subtropical gyres of the NA decelerated with corresponding sea level rise in the former and decrease in the latter, while an opposite occurred in the subpolar and subtropical gyres of the NP. The interannual change of the sea level in the NA during the decade of 1993–2003 was characterised by a dipole inter-gyre oscillation pattern, associated with the winter NAO index. The interannual change of the sea level in the NP was found coherent with PDO, which possibly switched from positive to negative phase in 1998. The results of this work suggest that the recently reported local trends of sea level are not necessarily related to the global sea level rise, but may be a part of interdecadal fluctuations. Thus the interdecadal variability is a likely reason for the recent decline of the surface circulation in the extratropical NA and for the positive sea level trends in the subpolar and eastern NA and in the subtropical NP.

It was named Greenland for a reason....

Well there goes the budgets of at least a dozen Sci-Fi doomsday movies in production.

quote:

---

"Here's how it affects you (doesn't) and your kids (doesn't) and their kids as well (won't.)

---

so funny how they hype this and ignore the debt,

which WILL have an impact on future generations

Happer

From Wiki with references:

In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2 "a boon to plant life."[13] It was described in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the editorial page, which is known for its denialism of climate science.[14]

In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer asked the fee to be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in that way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.[15]


13. Happer's article, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide", Wall St. Journal, May, 2013

14. "The WSJ editorial page hits rock bottom", Columbia Journalism Review, May 9, 2013

15. Suzanne Goldenberg, "Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science", The Guardian, December 8, 2015.

hmm....

198 can't be wrong...


“Scientists are out for personal gain, publishing alarmist studies to capture research grants.”

There is no evidence to support this argument. Scientists who participate in the IPCC climate assessments are not paid, nor are those who participate in panels for the National Academy of Sciences. Career advancement in the sciences is not based on holding popular views, but on publishing original research. By contrast, many deniers have received funding from entities with a financial stake in fossil fuel-based energy system.


which brings us to this... a little bit about his little group he's the president of....

quote:

---

Spark of Freedom reports that its aims are to “influence public policy by promoting free markets, affordable energy, and common-sense energy and environment solutions.” According to its website, environmentalists should “should recognize the benefits of energy sources such as natural gas, hydro, and nuclear power.” It adds, that “federal, state, and local government policies restrict production and use of these valuable, common-ground energy sources. That needs to change.” [53]

A sample of recent articles in the “energy” category suggest that Spark of Freedom is pro-fracking and pro-nuclear, while opposing renewable energy like wind power:

---

yeah, he's not biased or anything... he has no financial incentive to publish a misleading article in a fricking financial magazine, rather than an actual scientific journal for peer review...




hey, butterfly... what else you got?

How did a Gateway Pundit article that cited no actual data get to 4 pages?

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.

so, 2... out of thousands... and those 2 weren't paid by the IPCC...

quote:

---

The IPCC first assessment report was completed in 1990, and served as the basis of the UNFCCC.

The executive summary of the WG I Summary for Policymakers report says they are certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. They calculate with confidence that CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect

---

they didn't exactly start a few years ago...

quote:

---

Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings.

---

but yeah.... it's just to cause panic and shite, though, with all that underestimation...

quote:

---

Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.

---

there goes that O&G influence again...